285 mile vs 365 mile range is no slight difference. Range is pretty important. However, given the mission of the US Marine Corps, the Cobra’s lower speed can be a problem for the supported much faster CH-53E and V-22.
As a former AH-1W Plane Captain the data presented is incorrect. The engine in the AH-1W is a GE T-700 which is the same as the AH-64. The USMC changed from the PW T400 engines back in the early 90's, also the image above is of the AH-1Z (Viper), which is the new H-1. My old Squadron HMLA-167 and HMLA-269 on New River, NC is not outfitted with the new AH-1Z. Unfortunately this video is an accurate video in comparison or data presented.
Of course the Apache is superior to the Cobra. It was its replacement. I really like the design of the Cobra, its the best looking attack helicopter in service. The Super Cobra and Viper are modified versions of an old design. Very much upgraded but a dated airframe. Its like comparing updated F-16 with F-35: or M60 Sabra with M1A2 Abrams. Makes sense for the Super Cobra to have greater range as its often used from ships to support amphibious assaults. BTW Apache can carry 4 Stingers but only 2 Sidewinders. This is swapped around in the video.
Incorrect, I believe the cobra is now mainly used for the marines but the Apache has overtaken it for the army. I believe the apache has some better weaponry capacity but I feel the cobra is way more maneuverable.
cost per unit and parts commonality are options to consider as well. if america gets hard up there are a lot of parts in common with the cobra and huey.
Your information is way off! The cobra was the first to carry sidewinder air-to-air missiles. And why aren't comparing the newest cobra helicopter the Z model. It beats the Apache d model in most every aspect. Currently the new Cobra z model. Which is 4 years old now. Is on Top. But I'm sure the army will come up with something to beat the cobra.
The E model Apache would be better too… I honestly think it’s a about a wash between the AH64E and the AH1Z, except in payload where the 64 dominates. Just my two cents tho
One thing that was not mentioned was the maintenance record of both birds - uptime and downtime. Back in the 80's, this was one of the reasons the Marine Corps stayed with the Cobras. This is very important during war because you may have to fly missions non stop and even, refuel with the bird is still turning, hotseat pilot & copilot while the bird is still turning, and keep all that going. If a bird is always on the deadline needing parts replaced, what good is it to the mission?
Maintenance and spares are easier with the Cobra and Supercobras because the USMC kept the Huey and later twin Huey as it's utility helicopter. The UH-1 and the AH-1 share a lot of parts which makes logistics easier on board the boats. The Apache and the Blackhawk have nothing in common.
The Cobra has that Airwolf DNA, me thinks 😎 I believe Airwolf was a mod’ed Bell-made chopper. So perhaps the same designers, or company design ethos, instantly maies the Cobra look and sound “Airwolfy” 😃
For the Super Cobra, it has two engines because of it's role for needing to fly over large bodies of water. With two T-700 engines, and the use of a combining gearbox to make use of that torque, you experience some loss of torque. This is the trade off for having the redundancy of two engines in case one is knocked out, over the ocean. Both have two engines, but the reason I mention the Super Cobra only is because my job in the past was on Cobras.
@@thesweatleaf I don't really know too much about the Apache; Not really sure if it has the same advantage or not. The Super Cobra is overall a good reliable attack helicopter. Before the first retrofit of an AH1-T cobra to the first supra cobra, the AH1-T's had a better maint record than the first Apaches, but that may have improved over the years for the Apache. That was only one of the reasons the Marine Corps stuck with the Cobras. We used to maintain 23/7 flight schedule, with hot refueling in the refueling pits, and also hot seating the pilots, while the birds were still turning. There were very few birds on the deadline at any time.
Apache is a newer design, but Cobra is much cheaper to operate. That is why lot of nations still operate it, even AH-1F. AH-1W can use Hellfires, but also much cheaper TOW-2, which can deal with most of the targets more economically.
Unlike the Army, the Marine Corp can call in it's own fixed wing close air support because it has about 20 squadrons of fighter/attack fixed wing aircraft. The lower cost of the AH-1Z is a good match for the Marines. It has the smallest budget of any of the armed services and again, it has a very capable Aviation Combat Element with fixed wing jets, tilt rotor, conventional rotary wing, and even seven C130 squadrons. While the AH-1Z might not be as capable as the AH-64D, it is capable enough when mixed with the rest of the resources of the Marine Aircraft wings.
You left out the cost. The Apache is 6X the cost of the super cobra, which is why budget constrained branches of the military such as the marines went for the super cobra. You can’t have this discussion without including the costs.
I'm curious why you did the AH-1W Super Cobra and the not AH-1Z Viper? The new Zulu Cobra is a beast of a helicopter. Love the content, keep it coming!
Specs are always confusing because they're different where you get them. Navair says the AH-1W has a speed of 170 KNOTs, which would be 195+ miles per hour. Not having flown in them, I can't verify either, but I know guys what were in the gulf war who praised the Cobra for fast, while the nod to just sheer punching power was to the Ah-64.
Maybe the reason that there’s a difference in production numbers has something to do with how aggressively the vehicle is used by its respective branch, and how many have been shot down over time… also, how many AH-1 airframes total as opposed to AH-64 airframes have been produced, because not all cobras are necessarily in the form of a ‘W’ variant… 1:51 6:57 …Having completely watched the video, I can say: ‘well isn’t someone biased’. The two aircraft have different missions, and you can see that they are tailored to those. Something that would have improved your video would have been some consideration of their agility. Also, you failed to consider the difference in versatility of the two aircrafts’ armaments, as the cobra is necessarily capable of a wider range of missions, whereas the Apache is more focused for its role in air cavalry, rather than the more comprehensive ranged air support role filled by the cobra. You also didn’t exactly consider fuel consumption, as the two have different weights. Neither was surface area considered, which would influence an aircraft’s luck (not getting hit by enemy fire).
IIUC, Apaches can be deployed at sea. But, they have to be marinized - and that's not cheap. Also, Apache airframes at sea as non-marinized guests (say, emergency landings/ferrying but not being hosted for joint ops, etc) means more ORDHAZ and other issues. Fuel flash point in Army helos is lower and can be a problem if one crashes on an amphib. There ARE US Army pilots who DO have certs to land on USN and allied ships, but, Marines flying Cobras can land just about anywhere. IIRC, the Cobra Z has better wire-cutter equipment, and a whole host of CEC suite advantages over the Apache. IIUC, the 1Z has a MUCH greater variety of ordnance that van be carried. But, as pointed out by others, 2 diff airframes, different missions. Personally, I'd take the 1Z. IIRC, the US Army DID once upon a time have and use the Cobras - back during Vietnam. I can't recall (w/o going to Wikipedia) when or why the Army dropped the Cobra. Maybe the European Theater order of battle gave reasons to ditch the Cobra. Plus, often, the US MIC and interservice rivalries make the branches allergic to having the same airframes since Congress can force them to share costs when/where the ex-officer-turned-contractor is opposed and bifircates the bidding and suppliers. Myriad other reasons exist, though.
There are mountain ranges in the Middle East that are between 18,000-20,000 ft so that ceiling is important when escorting Chinook and other helicopters.
@@chrisbeatty743 This is very true, ceiling is important for any aircraft, but it should also be mentioned the AH-64E (not this older D version!) is largely used at a significant range from their targets and typically at relatively low levels for cover against anti-aircraft cannon fire and missiles along with ATGM and MANPADS. Dipping behind terrain, buildings, or trees is beneficial and used when possible, while the ceiling is largely used while in transit between the action area.
You are comparing the Apache to the old Super Cobra instead of to the Viper. Also, you are just looking at numbers without considering mission. For example the Viper is more narrow and smaller, making it a smaller target and allowing more Vipers to be stored in smaller spaces. It is more agile, making it harder to target, and slightly faster. The Viper (not the Cobra) can carry pretty much the same load as an Apache. It can also fire Hellfire Longbow in salvos at multiple targets like the Apache. The Viper is much cheaper than the Apache and has parts commonality with the Venom Utility Helo. It doesn't need to generate as much power from its engines as an Apache because it is much lighter. And do we really care about maximum altitude. Helos fly as low as possible and only pop-up to shoot. However, you sort of downplay the range difference, which is not just "slightly" better as you suggest. The Viper has a much longer range, which is important, if you're flying off of a ship that has to maintain a safe distance from shore to avoid anti-ship missiles. Does that mean the Viper is "better" than than the Apache? No. They are different and have different missions. The Chain gun on the Apache is more powerful and it is well-armored while the Viper is not. If I want to support a massive offensive on the battlefield and main battle tanks are being used in great numbers, I would want, an Apache. It's a tank's worst nightmare. If, the situation on the other hand is that a Marine assault has gotten bogged down and rapid action is needed to take out a bunch of light armor, ground troops, machine gun nests, and bunkers, then I probably want a Viper. It would be a tremendous cost savings to tax payers if the Marines and Army could agree on one attack copter. My understanding is that the next-gen helo being selected currently is going to be for both services. If I had to save money NOW by retiring one or the other, I'd probably retire the Apache, simply because it's more expensive, heavier, larger, and slower. Speed, Agility, and Smaller Profile make the Viper, in my eyes, the one to pick. But again, this is only if I absolutely had to choose one or the other. The best is probably the best of both worlds, which is what we currently have.
You nailed it. Saved me from having to type it all out. Zulu/Viper took over around 2010-2012 and retired the SC. Its like comparing the F22 to the A10, two completely different roles to play on the battlefield.
you forgot the most important thig, turnaround time and ease of maintenance. the tecks i talked to say the cobra is a much easier machine to work on and less likely pron to electrical failure, but the apache is more up to date with its weapons controls and other electronic warfare components
There are so many issues I could point out it’s unreal. But I’ll leave it short and sweet…..first both are attack helicopters, but that doesn’t make them equal. You have to look at the nature of their use by their respective users. The Army (AH-64) and Marines (AH-1) have VERY DIFFERENT ways of fielding these aircraft in combat. Comparing them is like comparing an F-18 to an F-16…both are fighters, but not used or implemented in the same way by their respective users. Second, why are you talking about the Whiskey model? The Whiskey has been replaced by the Zulu model (AH-1Z) which has been in service for quite a few years now fully. It boasts far better stats and beats out the Longbow by a bit. (Nothing against the Apache, cause it’s a fine aircraft) How might I know all of this? Ah well I served as an H-1 mechanic in the Marines for both the AH-1W and UH-1N, and later the AH-1Z and UH-1Y when the transition was taking place. I also had the privilege of working with the Army AH-64 and UH-60 crews. We recognized that both of our aircraft were good for what each of our uses were. Now lastly you’re comparing the AH-1W and AH-64D…let’s see here they AH-1W was first produced in the 80’s-90’s…AH-64D was brought in around the early 2000’s. Hmmmmm….might that make some sense of why the two are so different?
Agreed. This video is from 2020, so how you anyone even arrive at comparing two older models of each helicopter? You have to specifically try to compare older models when producing this video. Even then, there were multiple typos in the information displayed. The mission wasn't mentioned either, as the Apache is more of a stand-off platform and the Cobra enjoys strafing runs while also having the long-range capability of up to 16 Hellfires with the two AIM-9X Sidewinders on the tips, something that should be specifically mentioned. I love both of these helicopters though, and a video also highlighting the capability of the Venom with rocket and gun pods along with many shared parts with the Viper would have also been a nice thing to mention as a bonus. This video is screaming for a correction at all levels.Thank you for your service.
A better comparison (more apples to apples) would have been of the Cobra Bell AH-1Z (Zulu Model) which is also 4 bladed Main/Tail instead of the Whiskey Model.
To be fair, the number of units produced of the Apache includes all variant since its inception while the AH-1W is only one variant of the Cobra, its latest iteration the AH-1Z is not called Cobra anymore but Viper, yet it's still a descendant of the Cobra family. Then there's the fact that the Apache is in use in many nations' military world wide while the AH-1W is only operated by the US Marines.
4:33 Cobra has a range typo. Range is “miles” not mph, that’s under speed. The cobra has better performance because it can loiter longer for longer combat duration.
Apache is designed first and foremost to destroy enemy armor and secondly as ground support whereas the cobra is designed first and foremost for ground support. If the cobra was superior to the apache then the army would be using it
It gets me like this comparing these 2 attack helicopters. They have different type missions. Like Marines helo has to be small, extra salt water type machinery & paint. The Apache is for a base away from salt water. Yes when Army needed to get a crap load of helo to Hattie the Marines had there LPH (some call it SMALL AIRCRAFT CARRIER) at Hattie. Marines helped the Army in a fast course of helo ops at sea. The Apache and transport helo and soldiers on a Nimitz aircraft carrier. It worked real good. Since the Army has been doing more at sea training with the Marines. Especially with the newer class ship. The floating base ship (research its a awesome idea put into practice) that is built on an oil tanker. Oil tanker has LCACS, top is flat for F35Bs, every helicopter, ospreys, smaller rubber boats. Has sleeping just like other Navy/Marine amphibious ships. BUT much better because its a base that carries so much more of everything needed. Also can be easily changed up depending on missions. Yes went far out but awesome base. The Army with Marines Spec Ops & other countries train together. In the end we are doing so much better with all forces. Train & fight together.
The cobra you’re showing is NOT a super cobra. It is a Zulu, because it has 4 blades. You’re assuming every Apache is a longbow and you’re assuming every cobra is a super cobra. Super cobra was the previous version. The Zulu is far more advanced. And you have no clue about aircraft.
Probably should have mentioned that the Apache can practically be shot down with a pellet gun. The Army found out real quick in Irag that they had a huge problem with the Apache when it was routinely brought down by small arms fire. I'd take the Cobra any day. FAR more durable.
In war quantity over quality are your best bet and in this case, the Apache outperforms the Super Cobra with a much lower cost to boot. It is 13 million US to build a Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow. In contrast, it is 111 million to assemble a single AH-1W Super Cobra. With the budget it takes to craft a single Super Cobra, you can service 8 brand new Apaches with the last 500k going towards armament. If we tried to mass-produce Super Cobras in a major conflict we'd face the same issue the Germans had during WWII, high-cost equipment with little low return rate. The issue in war will more often than not be numbers. We outproduced Germany in that conflict with the M4 Sherman battle tank, it was a low-cost tank with reliable results compared to the infinitely more expensive Tiger/Panther tank the German's had. Interesting retrospect and food for thought.
Need to reformulate your information. The cost of an AH-1Z Viper is only $75M (latest version 2020) and $61M initial cost of AH-64D Apache and $23.77M to upgrade to the E model (25 scheduled for 2021).
cost per unit and parts commonality are options to consider as well. if america gets hard up there are a lot of parts in common with the cobra and huey.
considering they dont run in the red for long...i.e. top speed the ten MPH is net zero. Same with the alt. How often does the helo fly at its max alt? Again not very often. How many times have they flown as far as possible??? all the time. Clear winner would not be AH64D , even a bias review might just call the extra range of the Cobra a wash....also prob pointed out but you listed its range in MPH/KPH
Ridiculous comparisons. First, the production numbers mean nothing. The Marines are a smaller branch and needs less numbers than the Army. If the Apache was Marines and Cobra was Army, the Cobra will have higher numbers. Next, the forward facing photos are not sized correctly. The cobra is much thinner and harder to see which was a spec requirement that the Apache is not designed to fill. You can see an apache from faaaar away and it has a much larger radar signature. Much. Cobra is used more for close air support, Apache is used more as a stand off weapon. Cobra is much more maneuverable and agile due to the Apaches weight hindering it. Marine Corp weaponry must be amphibious deployable. The Apache is not amphibiously deployed. It is like comparing F15 to F18. F15 is air superiority but it cannot be deployed everywhere. The F18 can be deployed everywhere. If you have the best helicopter in the world (according to how you wish to interpret specs) the best helicopter is inadequate as the best if it is not globally deployable. The Apache is now obsolete compared to the AH-1Z anyway. It is a different generation aircraft. Oh and by the way, look at the maintenance records and crash records of Apaches versus the Cobra. It was a long time that they were going to scrap the Apache because all of its problems. It still has problems with desert environments. I actually like both but if this post is confirmation bias against Cobra, then I am going to share the mass of data you have missed.
Never understood why “Corp” were so committed to the Bell / skid format for their yankee and Zulu variants of the Huey / Cobra. Perhaps it was just to “spread the wealth around”
Just some information...the "Cobra" was the only Army helicopter that I know of that wasn't named after a Native American tribe. (Of course the U.S. Army had them before too).
You're thinking of the AH-1 Viper, the current model. The helicopter they SHOULD have compared the Apache to. This comparison was between an Apache and the old, retired version of the AH-1.
I did not watch the whole thing. These guys do respect my time. But in scanning it no mention of stealthiness, no mention of cost, no mention of ease of maintenance, no mention of load on pilot, no mention of resistance to damage, no mention of resistance to EMP or EW attacks or to quote Chris Watts, no "inclination to" any actual thinking. For those who don't know, Chris Watts was not bright enough to say "indication of".
No matter how many times the Marine Corps retrofits the Cobra, it will always be an OLD, less superior aircraft to the newer, more modern Apache. No real comp here. The Marine Corps has always been slow to make major changes are always more complicated & harder to institute for shipboard/maritime missions.
UKRAINE NEEDS THESE HELICOPTERS TO REALLY MAKE A DENT ON THE RUSSIAN BONSAI ASSAULTS IN BAKMUT, IF YOU CAN'T COMBINE YOUR GROUND AND AIR ASSETS WITH THE ARTILLERY UNITS, YOUR ARE AT A DISAVANTAGE
I think some of the stats you focused on where not very important, like flight ceiling for a close air support attack helicopter not very relevant. No time spent on maneuvering or there intended rolls or survivability or required ground support or the age of the design. This Was like I was being read a sales pitch or the Wikipedia stats. Just number being read out of context. For instance the fact that there where more manufactured than the other only means that it’s roll was larger than the others. Explaining that Killing Russian tanks in Central Europe from giant nato bases is a relatively easier design roll vs. supporting marines operating from ships. The cobra having a narrow frame and 2 blade main rotor is a huge advantage for bringing more of them to the fight. This video is a classic example of not understanding that all designs are a series of compromises in order to fill a roll.
You're comparing dissimilar vehicles being based in at often times dissimilar needed capacities. Does the Army function off Amphibious Assault Carriers? Is the Super Cobra or the AH-1Z Viper what you should be comparing? Think of medium horse cavalry vs heavy full plate armored knights. This video gets a fail.
I disagree with your assessment. You left out the test of movement. The Apache is a slow beast compared to the cobra. The Cobra can turn on a dime and run circles around the Apache. The Cobra is much more nimble. It’s also better suited for a variety of conflicts since it’s weapons are much more versatile. There’s a lot of things the cobra can carry but the Apache cannot. The cobra was designed for in your face combat. It can literally fly in between trees.
I like the ah 1z Viper and I like the ah super cobra and I like the ah cobra and I like the ah 64 the Apache attack helicopter I like all the attack helicopters from the ah1 Viper all the way to the ah-64 Apache I would like to see more of ah 1z Viper and ah super cobra and ah 1 cobra and the ah 64 Apache
The Cobras engines may be slightly less powerful. But it's power to weight ratio is better which is why it's faster,its also more aerodynamic. And you stated the speed of the older single engine Cobra... Not this W model which has a top speed of over 195 mph. So the SuperCobra is faster than the Apache and Z model is faster again at over 200 mph..
VCompare you left off the fact the Cobra is 1960-1970 Heli sure they improved the Cobra, but the Apache is the next gen so wtf? Obviously the Apache is best it's today's Heli.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
ruclips.net/video/6N6S7ABlGYg/видео.html
Russian Military Losses In Ukraine
Probably would have made more sense to compare the AH-64D with the AH-1Z Viper, since that is the current version being fielded.
It's too bad it has just NO armor for the pilots. yet weighs so similarly.
AH64E is the current Apache, has been for a couple years.
Right
The AH-1Z Viper would have beat the AH-64D.
@@trainedbyuk no bro
285 mile vs 365 mile range is no slight difference. Range is pretty important. However, given the mission of the US Marine Corps, the Cobra’s lower speed can be a problem for the supported much faster CH-53E and V-22.
The Cobra has a Marine as the pilot that automatically makes it more deadly.
Yeah, For allies units
Nope.
Coast Guard beats everyone
@@konakona420 no the coast guards
Speaks in Korengal Valley....
As a former AH-1W Plane Captain the data presented is incorrect. The engine in the AH-1W is a GE T-700 which is the same as the AH-64. The USMC changed from the PW T400 engines back in the early 90's, also the image above is of the AH-1Z (Viper), which is the new H-1. My old Squadron HMLA-167 and HMLA-269 on New River, NC is not outfitted with the new AH-1Z. Unfortunately this video is an accurate video in comparison or data presented.
not many know about the cobra/viper compare to Apache ,especially outside of US , I like cobra/viper more 😉👍
Of course the Apache is superior to the Cobra. It was its replacement.
I really like the design of the Cobra, its the best looking attack helicopter in service. The Super Cobra and Viper are modified versions of an old design. Very much upgraded but a dated airframe.
Its like comparing updated F-16 with F-35: or M60 Sabra with M1A2 Abrams.
Makes sense for the Super Cobra to have greater range as its often used from ships to support amphibious assaults.
BTW Apache can carry 4 Stingers but only 2 Sidewinders. This is swapped around in the video.
Incorrect, I believe the cobra is now mainly used for the marines but the Apache has overtaken it for the army. I believe the apache has some better weaponry capacity but I feel the cobra is way more maneuverable.
Apache is most likely more quiet. And it has quite a bit more takeoff weight capability.
cost per unit and parts commonality are options to consider as well. if america gets hard up there are a lot of parts in common with the cobra and huey.
F-35 is a hangar queen obummer canceled the F22 cuz the chicoms told him to fund the F35
Your information is way off! The cobra was the first to carry sidewinder air-to-air missiles. And why aren't comparing the newest cobra helicopter the Z model. It beats the Apache d model in most every aspect. Currently the new Cobra z model. Which is 4 years old now. Is on Top. But I'm sure the army will come up with something to beat the cobra.
I was thinking the same thing
Yea 20mm round at 1500 to 2000rds a min instead of 30mm at 450 rounds a min.
Also why didn’t he discuss the prices? Because i believe thats also different by a long shot
The E model Apache would be better too… I honestly think it’s a about a wash between the AH64E and the AH1Z, except in payload where the 64 dominates. Just my two cents tho
The funny thing is, he was using the image of a Zulu when showing stats of a whiskey
One thing that was not mentioned was the maintenance record of both birds - uptime and downtime. Back in the 80's, this was one of the reasons the Marine Corps stayed with the Cobras. This is very important during war because you may have to fly missions non stop and even, refuel with the bird is still turning, hotseat pilot & copilot while the bird is still turning, and keep all that going. If a bird is always on the deadline needing parts replaced, what good is it to the mission?
Maintenance and spares are easier with the Cobra and Supercobras because the USMC kept the Huey and later twin Huey as it's utility helicopter. The UH-1 and the AH-1 share a lot of parts which makes logistics easier on board the boats.
The Apache and the Blackhawk have nothing in common.
Uptime is a HUGE factor. No good having a fancy weapon that you can only count on 60% of the time vs one that you can rely upon 85-90% of the time.
You should do one comparing the Apache vs the new Viper version of the Cobra, it looks a lot closer to the Apache since the Super Cobra is retired.
Good video, but I have a counter-argument. Look at the SuperCobra. Yes the Apache looks mean as hell, but look at that SuperCobra. Holy damn.
Apache looks tough, badass and powerful but the super cobra looks fucking venomous, deadly, quick and dangerous (to the enemy of course)
I'll Take the Snake!🐍
The Cobra has that Airwolf DNA, me thinks 😎
I believe Airwolf was a mod’ed Bell-made chopper. So perhaps the same designers, or company design ethos, instantly maies the Cobra look and sound “Airwolfy” 😃
For the Super Cobra, it has two engines because of it's role for needing to fly over large bodies of water. With two T-700 engines, and the use of a combining gearbox to make use of that torque, you experience some loss of torque. This is the trade off for having the redundancy of two engines in case one is knocked out, over the ocean. Both have two engines, but the reason I mention the Super Cobra only is because my job in the past was on Cobras.
So, the Super Cobra is more resilient in cases where it loses an engine than the Apache, correct?
@@thesweatleaf I don't really know too much about the Apache; Not really sure if it has the same advantage or not. The Super Cobra is overall a good reliable attack helicopter. Before the first retrofit of an AH1-T cobra to the first supra cobra, the AH1-T's had a better maint record than the first Apaches, but that may have improved over the years for the Apache. That was only one of the reasons the Marine Corps stuck with the Cobras. We used to maintain 23/7 flight schedule, with hot refueling in the refueling pits, and also hot seating the pilots, while the birds were still turning. There were very few birds on the deadline at any time.
... because of its* role (it's = it is)
Apache is a newer design, but Cobra is much cheaper to operate. That is why lot of nations still operate it, even AH-1F.
AH-1W can use Hellfires, but also much cheaper TOW-2, which can deal with most of the targets more economically.
Unlike the Army, the Marine Corp can call in it's own fixed wing close air support because it has about 20 squadrons of fighter/attack fixed wing aircraft. The lower cost of the AH-1Z is a good match for the Marines. It has the smallest budget of any of the armed services and again, it has a very capable Aviation Combat Element with fixed wing jets, tilt rotor, conventional rotary wing, and even seven C130 squadrons. While the AH-1Z might not be as capable as the AH-64D, it is capable enough when mixed with the rest of the resources of the Marine Aircraft wings.
You left out the cost. The Apache is 6X the cost of the super cobra, which is why budget constrained branches of the military such as the marines went for the super cobra. You can’t have this discussion without including the costs.
The Whiskey Cobra with it's massive two rotors at full speed is THE coolest sound ever.
I'm curious why you did the AH-1W Super Cobra and the not AH-1Z Viper? The new Zulu Cobra is a beast of a helicopter. Love the content, keep it coming!
What do you mean by trailed armaments?
Both of these are winners in my book!! I love them both.
So, who of them is the Blue Thunder?
I was part of the evaluation team for the W at China Lake in 86.
This video leaves out two weapons. The pilots M1911 and a MFK KBar
Specs are always confusing because they're different where you get them. Navair says the AH-1W has a speed of 170 KNOTs, which would be 195+ miles per hour. Not having flown in them, I can't verify either, but I know guys what were in the gulf war who praised the Cobra for fast, while the nod to just sheer punching power was to the Ah-64.
Maybe the reason that there’s a difference in production numbers has something to do with how aggressively the vehicle is used by its respective branch, and how many have been shot down over time… also, how many AH-1 airframes total as opposed to AH-64 airframes have been produced, because not all cobras are necessarily in the form of a ‘W’ variant… 1:51
6:57 …Having completely watched the video, I can say: ‘well isn’t someone biased’. The two aircraft have different missions, and you can see that they are tailored to those.
Something that would have improved your video would have been some consideration of their agility.
Also, you failed to consider the difference in versatility of the two aircrafts’ armaments, as the cobra is necessarily capable of a wider range of missions, whereas the Apache is more focused for its role in air cavalry, rather than the more comprehensive ranged air support role filled by the cobra.
You also didn’t exactly consider fuel consumption, as the two have different weights.
Neither was surface area considered, which would influence an aircraft’s luck (not getting hit by enemy fire).
IIUC, Apaches can be deployed at sea. But, they have to be marinized - and that's not cheap.
Also, Apache airframes at sea as non-marinized guests (say, emergency landings/ferrying but not being hosted for joint ops, etc) means more ORDHAZ and other issues. Fuel flash point in Army helos is lower and can be a problem if one crashes on an amphib.
There ARE US Army pilots who DO have certs to land on USN and allied ships, but, Marines flying Cobras can land just about anywhere.
IIRC, the Cobra Z has better wire-cutter equipment, and a whole host of CEC suite advantages over the Apache.
IIUC, the 1Z has a MUCH greater variety of ordnance that van be carried.
But, as pointed out by others, 2 diff airframes, different missions. Personally, I'd take the 1Z.
IIRC, the US Army DID once upon a time have and use the Cobras - back during Vietnam. I can't recall (w/o going to Wikipedia) when or why the Army dropped the Cobra. Maybe the European Theater order of battle gave reasons to ditch the Cobra.
Plus, often, the US MIC and interservice rivalries make the branches allergic to having the same airframes since Congress can force them to share costs when/where the ex-officer-turned-contractor is opposed and bifircates the bidding and suppliers. Myriad other reasons exist, though.
Is service ceiling super important for an attack helicopter? I’m wouldn’t think a apache would be sitting at 18,000msl in a combat situation.
There are mountain ranges in the Middle East that are between 18,000-20,000 ft so that ceiling is important when escorting Chinook and other helicopters.
@@chrisbeatty743 This is very true, ceiling is important for any aircraft, but it should also be mentioned the AH-64E (not this older D version!) is largely used at a significant range from their targets and typically at relatively low levels for cover against anti-aircraft cannon fire and missiles along with ATGM and MANPADS. Dipping behind terrain, buildings, or trees is beneficial and used when possible, while the ceiling is largely used while in transit between the action area.
> I wouldn't think an Apache would be sitting at 18,000 feet
And that's why it's there. ;)
The bad guys didn't think it would be there either. 😂
Cost per flight hour?
HOW MANY CHANNELS HAVE THIS VOICE
You are comparing the Apache to the old Super Cobra instead of to the Viper.
Also, you are just looking at numbers without considering mission.
For example the Viper is more narrow and smaller, making it a smaller target and allowing more Vipers to be stored in smaller spaces. It is more agile, making it harder to target, and slightly faster. The Viper (not the Cobra) can carry pretty much the same load as an Apache. It can also fire Hellfire Longbow in salvos at multiple targets like the Apache. The Viper is much cheaper than the Apache and has parts commonality with the Venom Utility Helo. It doesn't need to generate as much power from its engines as an Apache because it is much lighter.
And do we really care about maximum altitude. Helos fly as low as possible and only pop-up to shoot. However, you sort of downplay the range difference, which is not just "slightly" better as you suggest. The Viper has a much longer range, which is important, if you're flying off of a ship that has to maintain a safe distance from shore to avoid anti-ship missiles.
Does that mean the Viper is "better" than than the Apache? No. They are different and have different missions. The Chain gun on the Apache is more powerful and it is well-armored while the Viper is not. If I want to support a massive offensive on the battlefield and main battle tanks are being used in great numbers, I would want, an Apache. It's a tank's worst nightmare. If, the situation on the other hand is that a Marine assault has gotten bogged down and rapid action is needed to take out a bunch of light armor, ground troops, machine gun nests, and bunkers, then I probably want a Viper.
It would be a tremendous cost savings to tax payers if the Marines and Army could agree on one attack copter. My understanding is that the next-gen helo being selected currently is going to be for both services. If I had to save money NOW by retiring one or the other, I'd probably retire the Apache, simply because it's more expensive, heavier, larger, and slower. Speed, Agility, and Smaller Profile make the Viper, in my eyes, the one to pick. But again, this is only if I absolutely had to choose one or the other. The best is probably the best of both worlds, which is what we currently have.
You nailed it. Saved me from having to type it all out. Zulu/Viper took over around 2010-2012 and retired the SC.
Its like comparing the F22 to the A10, two completely different roles to play on the battlefield.
Just out of curiosity, where are you from? :)
you forgot the most important thig, turnaround time and ease of maintenance. the tecks i talked to say the cobra is a much easier machine to work on and less likely pron to electrical failure, but the apache is more up to date with its weapons controls and other electronic warfare components
There are so many issues I could point out it’s unreal.
But I’ll leave it short and sweet…..first both are attack helicopters, but that doesn’t make them equal. You have to look at the nature of their use by their respective users. The Army (AH-64) and Marines (AH-1) have VERY DIFFERENT ways of fielding these aircraft in combat. Comparing them is like comparing an F-18 to an F-16…both are fighters, but not used or implemented in the same way by their respective users.
Second, why are you talking about the Whiskey model? The Whiskey has been replaced by the Zulu model (AH-1Z) which has been in service for quite a few years now fully. It boasts far better stats and beats out the Longbow by a bit. (Nothing against the Apache, cause it’s a fine aircraft)
How might I know all of this? Ah well I served as an H-1 mechanic in the Marines for both the AH-1W and UH-1N, and later the AH-1Z and UH-1Y when the transition was taking place. I also had the privilege of working with the Army AH-64 and UH-60 crews. We recognized that both of our aircraft were good for what each of our uses were.
Now lastly you’re comparing the AH-1W and AH-64D…let’s see here they AH-1W was first produced in the 80’s-90’s…AH-64D was brought in around the early 2000’s.
Hmmmmm….might that make some sense of why the two are so different?
Agreed. This video is from 2020, so how you anyone even arrive at comparing two older models of each helicopter? You have to specifically try to compare older models when producing this video. Even then, there were multiple typos in the information displayed. The mission wasn't mentioned either, as the Apache is more of a stand-off platform and the Cobra enjoys strafing runs while also having the long-range capability of up to 16 Hellfires with the two AIM-9X Sidewinders on the tips, something that should be specifically mentioned.
I love both of these helicopters though, and a video also highlighting the capability of the Venom with rocket and gun pods along with many shared parts with the Viper would have also been a nice thing to mention as a bonus. This video is screaming for a correction at all levels.Thank you for your service.
I'll take BOTH thank you! Seen both in action and didn't give two shits which one was there! Both are very capable attackers!!!!!
Marine wants their own helicopter program, thus they got the Cobra to play with
actually, they asked for the Apache for years but only got the Cobra
A better comparison (more apples to apples) would have been of the Cobra Bell AH-1Z (Zulu Model) which is also 4 bladed Main/Tail instead of the Whiskey Model.
3:15 So, the Apache has 2 engines made by General Electric, but the Cobra’s engines are from General General Electric?
It’s a tough choice.... I will take both. Please pack them to go.
Nothing about availability ratio?
To be fair, the number of units produced of the Apache includes all variant since its inception while the AH-1W is only one variant of the Cobra, its latest iteration the AH-1Z is not called Cobra anymore but Viper, yet it's still a descendant of the Cobra family. Then there's the fact that the Apache is in use in many nations' military world wide while the AH-1W is only operated by the US Marines.
How can be the AH1 heli length (13.84 m) shorter than the main rotor diameter (14.60 m)? o.O
They're both bad ass and kicks ass, we are 1 HOOAAH
4:33 Cobra has a range typo. Range is “miles” not mph, that’s under speed. The cobra has better performance because it can loiter longer for longer combat duration.
Apache is designed first and foremost to destroy enemy armor and secondly as ground support whereas the cobra is designed first and foremost for ground support. If the cobra was superior to the apache then the army would be using it
I don't remember the details of why. But I spoke with a former cobra pilot and from what he said, the Apache is top of the line.
I agree. Should have compared with the AH-1Z (Voo Doo) Viper
4:32 There is range for Apache in km, but for Cobra in kph. Why?
Poor editing
It gets me like this comparing these 2 attack helicopters. They have different type missions. Like Marines helo has to be small, extra salt water type machinery & paint. The Apache is for a base away from salt water. Yes when Army needed to get a crap load of helo to Hattie the Marines had there LPH (some call it SMALL AIRCRAFT CARRIER) at Hattie. Marines helped the Army in a fast course of helo ops at sea. The Apache and transport helo and soldiers on a Nimitz aircraft carrier. It worked real good. Since the Army has been doing more at sea training with the Marines. Especially with the newer class ship. The floating base ship (research its a awesome idea put into practice) that is built on an oil tanker. Oil tanker has LCACS, top is flat for F35Bs, every helicopter, ospreys, smaller rubber boats. Has sleeping just like other Navy/Marine amphibious ships. BUT much better because its a base that carries so much more of everything needed. Also can be easily changed up depending on missions. Yes went far out but awesome base. The Army with Marines Spec Ops & other countries train together. In the end we are doing so much better with all forces. Train & fight together.
Uh dude, the ah-1w has been out of US service for years… the Y model is currently in the inventory and is much improved.
Some differences but both are very capable & very dangerous & deadly.
The cobra you’re showing is NOT a super cobra. It is a Zulu, because it has 4 blades.
You’re assuming every Apache is a longbow and you’re assuming every cobra is a super cobra. Super cobra was the previous version. The Zulu is far more advanced. And you have no clue about aircraft.
Probably should have mentioned that the Apache can practically be shot down with a pellet gun. The Army found out real quick in Irag that they had a huge problem with the Apache when it was routinely brought down by small arms fire. I'd take the Cobra any day. FAR more durable.
In war quantity over quality are your best bet and in this case, the Apache outperforms the Super Cobra with a much lower cost to boot. It is 13 million US to build a Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow. In contrast, it is 111 million to assemble a single AH-1W Super Cobra. With the budget it takes to craft a single Super Cobra, you can service 8 brand new Apaches with the last 500k going towards armament.
If we tried to mass-produce Super Cobras in a major conflict we'd face the same issue the Germans had during WWII, high-cost equipment with little low return rate. The issue in war will more often than not be numbers. We outproduced Germany in that conflict with the M4 Sherman battle tank, it was a low-cost tank with reliable results compared to the infinitely more expensive Tiger/Panther tank the German's had.
Interesting retrospect and food for thought.
Need to reformulate your information. The cost of an AH-1Z Viper is only $75M (latest version 2020) and $61M initial cost of AH-64D Apache and $23.77M to upgrade to the E model (25 scheduled for 2021).
Like how the width of the 2 helis are "much" longer than the length in comparison....
Overall blade length added.
There both pretty bad ass. Depends on the crew
cost per unit and parts commonality are options to consider as well. if america gets hard up there are a lot of parts in common with the cobra and huey.
I'd take a Super Cobra over an Apache into battle any day.
Did many battles ?
Can't decide over a video. I'll compare them both by myself when they arrive.
I also measure distance in MPH. But I'm weird like that.
Very dated information regarding both helos, their armament and especially the AH-1Z.
why are you comparing the Apache to the AH-1W? I guess there is no comparing the Apache to the AH-1Z
Fun fact: HMLA-367 fired the last TOW missile from an AH-1W on Augusta 9, 2013. In Twentynine Palms, CA. That was such a shitty place to deploy.
HMLA-367 '89 - '93 Desert Shield/Desert Storm... Good times!
I agree, this should have been compared to the AH-1Z Viper
Why are you talking about a AH-1W while showing photos and dementions of the AH-1Z
The AH 1Z is better for Air to Air but Apatche is better for ground
considering they dont run in the red for long...i.e. top speed the ten MPH is net zero. Same with the alt. How often does the helo fly at its max alt? Again not very often. How many times have they flown as far as possible??? all the time. Clear winner would not be AH64D , even a bias review might just call the extra range of the Cobra a wash....also prob pointed out but you listed its range in MPH/KPH
Cobra ❤ ( Never any Apache when you could get an Kamov KA50 Black Shark or especially the Cobra
Pilot choices are all that matters.
airwolf wins !
Ridiculous comparisons. First, the production numbers mean nothing. The Marines are a smaller branch and needs less numbers than the Army. If the Apache was Marines and Cobra was Army, the Cobra will have higher numbers. Next, the forward facing photos are not sized correctly. The cobra is much thinner and harder to see which was a spec requirement that the Apache is not designed to fill. You can see an apache from faaaar away and it has a much larger radar signature. Much. Cobra is used more for close air support, Apache is used more as a stand off weapon. Cobra is much more maneuverable and agile due to the Apaches weight hindering it. Marine Corp weaponry must be amphibious deployable. The Apache is not amphibiously deployed. It is like comparing F15 to F18. F15 is air superiority but it cannot be deployed everywhere. The F18 can be deployed everywhere. If you have the best helicopter in the world (according to how you wish to interpret specs) the best helicopter is inadequate as the best if it is not globally deployable. The Apache is now obsolete compared to the AH-1Z anyway. It is a different generation aircraft. Oh and by the way, look at the maintenance records and crash records of Apaches versus the Cobra. It was a long time that they were going to scrap the Apache because all of its problems. It still has problems with desert environments. I actually like both but if this post is confirmation bias against Cobra, then I am going to share the mass of data you have missed.
Helicopter í something never existed before in nature
Video is comparing apples to oranges
You mean the oranges are heavy and the apples are light
Never understood why “Corp” were so committed to the Bell / skid format for their yankee and Zulu variants of the Huey / Cobra. Perhaps it was just to “spread the wealth around”
Just some information...the "Cobra" was the only Army helicopter that I know of that wasn't named after a Native American tribe. (Of course the U.S. Army had them before too).
I don't like the "Turned Exhaust" for the latest AH-1W honestly
Why is this dude's voice so familiar?
What were you smoking when you came up with this BSMSPHD??????
I thought the super cobra had 4 props which made It different from the regular cobra
You're thinking of the AH-1 Viper, the current model. The helicopter they SHOULD have compared the Apache to. This comparison was between an Apache and the old, retired version of the AH-1.
Ofc the apache is better BUT for 1 Apache you can buy 3 SuperCobras
Than it gets interesting
This video needs more love
I did not watch the whole thing. These guys do respect my time. But in scanning it no mention of stealthiness, no mention of cost, no mention of ease of maintenance, no mention of load on pilot, no mention of resistance to damage, no mention of resistance to EMP or EW attacks or to quote Chris Watts, no "inclination to" any actual thinking. For those who don't know, Chris Watts was not bright enough to say "indication of".
No matter how many times the Marine Corps retrofits the Cobra, it will always be an OLD, less superior aircraft to the newer, more modern Apache. No real comp here. The Marine Corps has always been slow to make major changes are always more complicated & harder to institute for shipboard/maritime missions.
You forgot one key component. The super cobra can hide better than the Apache.
How about both, cobra for foreign allies apache for us military both combined are best
Tell that to the Marines. Semper Fi
No No No !!! Move .. the onlu lethal Heilcopter is ...USA
Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow !!!!
UKRAINE NEEDS THESE HELICOPTERS TO REALLY MAKE A DENT ON THE RUSSIAN BONSAI ASSAULTS IN BAKMUT, IF YOU CAN'T COMBINE YOUR GROUND AND AIR ASSETS WITH THE ARTILLERY UNITS, YOUR ARE AT A DISAVANTAGE
before i watched video just assumed apache is more electronically loaded than the viper
WOW, lets compare a T model ford to General Motor's and see who comes out on top.
I think some of the stats you focused on where not very important, like flight ceiling for a close air support attack helicopter not very relevant. No time spent on maneuvering or there intended rolls or survivability or required ground support or the age of the design. This Was like I was being read a sales pitch or the Wikipedia stats. Just number being read out of context. For instance the fact that there where more manufactured than the other only means that it’s roll was larger than the others. Explaining that Killing Russian tanks in Central Europe from giant nato bases is a relatively easier design roll vs. supporting marines operating from ships. The cobra having a narrow frame and 2 blade main rotor is a huge advantage for bringing more of them to the fight. This video is a classic example of not understanding that all designs are a series of compromises in order to fill a roll.
Apache is awesome don't get me wrong. But the sleek curves of the cobra (especially super cobra) is sexy.
You're comparing dissimilar vehicles being based in at often times dissimilar needed capacities. Does the Army function off Amphibious Assault Carriers? Is the Super Cobra or the AH-1Z Viper what you should be comparing? Think of medium horse cavalry vs heavy full plate armored knights. This video gets a fail.
I disagree with your assessment. You left out the test of movement. The Apache is a slow beast compared to the cobra. The Cobra can turn on a dime and run circles around the Apache. The Cobra is much more nimble. It’s also better suited for a variety of conflicts since it’s weapons are much more versatile. There’s a lot of things the cobra can carry but the Apache cannot. The cobra was designed for in your face combat. It can literally fly in between trees.
Well cobras are from the vietnam war while the apaches are from desert storm if i had to choose i guess ill go for the long bow.
I'll take the Cobra everytime.
I like the ah 1z Viper and I like the ah super cobra and I like the ah cobra and I like the ah 64 the Apache attack helicopter I like all the attack helicopters from the ah1 Viper all the way to the ah-64 Apache I would like to see more of ah 1z Viper and ah super cobra and ah 1 cobra and the ah 64 Apache
The Cobras engines may be slightly less powerful. But it's power to weight ratio is better which is why it's faster,its also more aerodynamic. And you stated the speed of the older single engine Cobra... Not this W model which has a top speed of over 195 mph. So the SuperCobra is faster than the Apache and Z model is faster again at over 200 mph..
I prefer the Apache
You have no idea.
I think this vid was created by a junior high school student using Wikipedia as their primary source
Why didn't you use the AH-1Z you used the AH-1W The 1Z the wayyy better
Why?
VCompare you left off the fact the Cobra is 1960-1970 Heli sure they improved the Cobra, but the Apache is the next gen so wtf? Obviously the Apache is best it's today's Heli.
Maybe the Apache is safer I think